There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
This is sure to be unpopular based on the number of people getting behind Hughes on here but I actually feel very strongly about this and feel the other side of the story should be heard.
Regardless of whether you, your dog, or Richard Hughes feels the new whip rules are stupid, they are the SAME rules for everyone. Richard Hughes fell foul of them earlier in the week, and then he did so again on Thursday. He was punished appropriately according to the new guidelines, which, again, are the same for everyone.
The man is loved by many and despised by a few as a result of his riding style, but it seems odd to me that one of the so-called 'horsemen' of his generation seems to be having such difficulty adhering to the new policy of not hitting a horse more than seven times and no more than five in the final furlong. Before people start losing it when reading this, I want to point out that I agree the punishment for his crime seems excessive. But the BHA announced earlier on Thursday that they would be reviewing the situation and conversing with the Jockeys about potential alterations. For the time being, the rules are there and he broke them. Twice.
Is it that hard to know when you have entered the final furlong and/or to count the number of times while riding a race? I'm sure it is harder than it seems, especially when it is a new rule and you have to do something you have never done before. But new rules come into every major sport on the planet from time to time and the ability to count under pressure is not something other sportsmen complain about. I'm quite certain that NBA and NFL stars must count the seconds on the shot clock without looking at it as they try to set up a championship-winning play. It's just that this is a new thing and it will take time for jockeys to get used to it.
What really frustrates me is the way in which punters, racing fans, and now jockeys are reacting to the first change the BHA have made in a long time that has actually been sanctioned for the long-term benefit of the sport. This is a welfare issue, and a deeper set one of public perception. It has not been introduced to make life harder for connections just so that men in suits can have something 'useful' to do (for a change). James Willoughby, a man that has made something of a living by introducing a modicum of science to the racing game was quoted this evening as saying there is scientific proof that the whip does not bring about any welfare issues (in other words, horses don't feel it). Whatever you think of me or my views, as someone with almost 20 years working with horses, plus a Masters degree in Biology, I can tell you that this is simply wrong. Overuse (or excessive force) of the whip has been a very real welfare issue that many have tried to dismiss over the past few years. Whether these new rules are the definitive answer or not, the BHA have done the right thing in trying to tackle the problem.
So, returning to Richard Hughes. Yes he was frustrated, and understandably so, but he is a senior jockey at the top end of the game. He is a genuinely nice guy, who will more often than not speak to the press and to the general man at the track when engaged in conversation. He is therefore an ambassador for this sport, and to effectively blackmail its rulers for his errors and in so doing basically sanction a mutiny just two days before Ascot's showpiece end-of-season championship event is just wrong. Plain and simple. It is not an acceptable way to behave - it sends the message to young jockeys that they can do as they please when they have the power as an established star, and whether or not it was his intention, it will apply pressure for other senior jockeys to do the same. As an aside, it is totally unprofessional to have given up his remaining rides yesterday - do you think the owners of those horses were happy with that decision? Or the punters who backed them earlier in the day? I'm quite sure they wanted him in the plate regardless of whether he felt he could give them the best of rides.
Want to stress once and for all that my personal opinions regarding the whip rule form only a minor element of my unhappiness with the way Hughes has acted. As I said initially, he was at fault twice this week and has been punished twice as a result. The authorities have not said they will not listen to reasoned arguments about how improvements can be made to the new system. This was just too big a step to take from someone who should have known better.
Regardless of whether you, your dog, or Richard Hughes feels the new whip rules are stupid, they are the SAME rules for everyone. Richard Hughes fell foul of them earlier in the week, and then he did so again on Thursday. He was punished appropriately according to the new guidelines, which, again, are the same for everyone.
The man is loved by many and despised by a few as a result of his riding style, but it seems odd to me that one of the so-called 'horsemen' of his generation seems to be having such difficulty adhering to the new policy of not hitting a horse more than seven times and no more than five in the final furlong. Before people start losing it when reading this, I want to point out that I agree the punishment for his crime seems excessive. But the BHA announced earlier on Thursday that they would be reviewing the situation and conversing with the Jockeys about potential alterations. For the time being, the rules are there and he broke them. Twice.
Is it that hard to know when you have entered the final furlong and/or to count the number of times while riding a race? I'm sure it is harder than it seems, especially when it is a new rule and you have to do something you have never done before. But new rules come into every major sport on the planet from time to time and the ability to count under pressure is not something other sportsmen complain about. I'm quite certain that NBA and NFL stars must count the seconds on the shot clock without looking at it as they try to set up a championship-winning play. It's just that this is a new thing and it will take time for jockeys to get used to it.
What really frustrates me is the way in which punters, racing fans, and now jockeys are reacting to the first change the BHA have made in a long time that has actually been sanctioned for the long-term benefit of the sport. This is a welfare issue, and a deeper set one of public perception. It has not been introduced to make life harder for connections just so that men in suits can have something 'useful' to do (for a change). James Willoughby, a man that has made something of a living by introducing a modicum of science to the racing game was quoted this evening as saying there is scientific proof that the whip does not bring about any welfare issues (in other words, horses don't feel it). Whatever you think of me or my views, as someone with almost 20 years working with horses, plus a Masters degree in Biology, I can tell you that this is simply wrong. Overuse (or excessive force) of the whip has been a very real welfare issue that many have tried to dismiss over the past few years. Whether these new rules are the definitive answer or not, the BHA have done the right thing in trying to tackle the problem.
So, returning to Richard Hughes. Yes he was frustrated, and understandably so, but he is a senior jockey at the top end of the game. He is a genuinely nice guy, who will more often than not speak to the press and to the general man at the track when engaged in conversation. He is therefore an ambassador for this sport, and to effectively blackmail its rulers for his errors and in so doing basically sanction a mutiny just two days before Ascot's showpiece end-of-season championship event is just wrong. Plain and simple. It is not an acceptable way to behave - it sends the message to young jockeys that they can do as they please when they have the power as an established star, and whether or not it was his intention, it will apply pressure for other senior jockeys to do the same. As an aside, it is totally unprofessional to have given up his remaining rides yesterday - do you think the owners of those horses were happy with that decision? Or the punters who backed them earlier in the day? I'm quite sure they wanted him in the plate regardless of whether he felt he could give them the best of rides.
Want to stress once and for all that my personal opinions regarding the whip rule form only a minor element of my unhappiness with the way Hughes has acted. As I said initially, he was at fault twice this week and has been punished twice as a result. The authorities have not said they will not listen to reasoned arguments about how improvements can be made to the new system. This was just too big a step to take from someone who should have known better.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 148
|
By:
I would get your tin hat on and jump in the trench if I was you.
|
|
By:
All that writing. You should have done your research first. Check first, jump later.
Since the new rules jockey's rides have been as follows: Richard Hughes: 32 rides with only 3 no. at 10/1 or bigger. K Fallon: 12 rides with only 3 no. at 10/1 or bigger. De Sousa: 28 rides with 13 no. at 10/1 or bigger. W Buick: 21 rides with 6 no. at 10/1 or bigger. You can see from the above list that 29 of Hughes's rides were well fancied and therefore would be in the firing line much more than any other jockey. The next nearest Buick also picked up a ban. |
|
By:
A well thought out piece Tom,alas,the frustrations of many are born out in his feelings!
 |
|
By:
Add to this:
Paul Hanagan (champion elect): 23 rides with 12 no. at 10/1 or bigger. Hughes rode 5 winners and 10 placed. De Sousa rode 4 winners and 7 placed. Buick rode 5 winners and 2 placed. Hanagan rode 1 winner and 3 placed. The clues are there. |
|
By:
Great piece Tom and i completely agree.
Rules are rules and those taking part in a sport with rules have to accept them. Their are ways of putting across reasons for not liking certain rule changes,but quitting in that way is not one of them. |
|
By:
With all due respect Bud,you have no idea what sport is actually about!
|
|
By:
"With all due respect Bud,you have no idea what sport is actually about! "
Could be the other way round, matey |
|
By:
Right behind you, Tom.
I can't stand people who take the law into their own hands, because they find it impossible to stay within the parameters laid down. I accept the stats compiled but for it could be argued that Hughes has had a greater number of finishes in which to hone his undoubted ability within the new regulations as opposed to Natalia Gemelova -- one finish, one break of the rules. As for the comment under pressure that 'it is like Messi not being able to use his left foot' one could equally say that 'it is like an outfield player not being allowed to pass back to his goalkeeper'. The bottom line is Hughes does not feel like adapting to a law. Whether the law is an ass is neither here nor there. For the time being there are new rules and until they are changed they have to be enforced. |
|
By:
if jockeys are not allowed to ride a horse out to its best position the the form book may as well be torn up. these new rules are a disaster for those who study form and i would like to see more owners, trainers and jockeys take the stance which the Legendary Richard Hughes has taken. These new whip rules should only be appropriate to the Grand National chase to appease the clowns who shouted for racing to be banned. Big-Up to Richard Hughes.
|
|
By:
Now we are cooking!
  |
|
By:
Tomdum, you have been listing to too many numties, your a pragmatist, and as far as racing and race horses,are concerend, what you know could be writen on the back of a penny black, and there would be enought room to write the Santanic Verses.
|
|
By:
He was on 5 Live just now - came across very badly for someone usually so articulate - sounded very defesnsive like someone who just wanted to whip horses more.
|
|
By:
This is just the start. These rules are made to appease the do gooders who have completely wrecked this country. Children cannot compete against each other as there is no winner or loser. We don't want anyone to feel bad do we. Back to subject: Godolphin may vote with their feet. Better prize money in France and Ireland so why not go their and other high profile owners may follow. Also,horses are dope tested and examined after races bt vets. How many times have jockey's been brought before the BHA for 'marking' a horse. I haven't read of many.
|
|
By:
Hughes is entitled to take his stand but I hope that he is left high and dry by the other riders. If he is too old to change his style then he should retire. The penalties are too high at the moment and may be revised but the riders know what they are and anyone who rides within the rules is not penalised at all. His analogy with Messi is farcical. Using your left foot is not against the rules. Shirt pulling would be a better analogy as most footballers do it and winge when they get penalised. People who get done for driving at 80mph are another group who moan about a law that everyone knows about but some think they can ignore.
|
|
By:
Hey, why not bring back spurs, or give each jockey a redhot poker to stick up the backside of their horse. That'll get some horses going I betcha. Then we'll see their 'true' ability.
|
|
By:
I don't suppose Hughesy would have been so disillusioned with the sport if he had managed to win the jockeys title last season, Canford Cliffs had readily won the Sussex stakes and was 1/3 favourite for the QEII being hailed as a great. I'm sure Tom Queally wouldn't have given up his Champions Day rides if the same happened to him. I personally think he's being a bit sulky and have no sympathy for him.
|
|
By:
"if jockeys are not allowed to ride a horse out to its best position the the form book may as well be torn up"
You talk as though that's a factor that should have any relevance whatsoever |
|
By:
OH.....perlllleeesee!
Richard Hughes is a winner,adheres to rules,when rules are wrong he protests,is this too difficult for you? |
|
By:
Ride them out but only hit them 5 times. Is that really so hard to understand? The whip rules will affect the results of some long distance jump races on soft going but very few flat races imo.
|
|
By:
totally with hughesy ,now get your toys back in the pram and dont spit the dummy out again or a WHIP may have to be used ........never cut off the hand that feeds you and your fellow jocks ....
|
|
By:
Maybe so Sage,but it's the principle i find offensive!
|
|
By:
Fair enough. Would you go back to the bad old days when horses came back bleeding from the whip? How long do you think racing would last then? I am opposed to the hunting ban but I know that I am in a minority.
|
|
By:
Sageform do you know anything about RH or racing?
He is the least penalised jockey for whip use. And if you know anything about horses to suddenly get stuck into them in the last furlong would only suit a small minority of horses. All of the jockeys agreed to a reduction in whip use. Did you understand that? All of the jockeys agreed to a reduction in whip use. The rule they brought in is unworkable. It's the rule that is the problem not the jockeys. |
|
By:
Its not clear but how many times does Richard Hughes want or need to hit a horse in that final furlong? If he loses out in a close finish the same whip restriction will have been in place on the other jockey in the finish, so the horse with the most ability or mental strength should win. If he is on horses that don't have mental strength and will fold when the whipping stops then so be it, under the new rules he isn't going to win as many as he might have done, but its the same for all. He has been a great jockey but I say let him go, it will give opportunities to others.
|
|
By:
Why is it ok to hit a horse 5 times, but not 6?
Where is the logic in that? |
|
By:
Excellent opening piece - I would only disagree in that I have absolutely no sympathy for Richard Hughes. He couldn't have scored a bigger own goal for himself and more importantly the perception of the sport. Trying to justify himself outside of his own little sanctuary he will come across as nothing short of a fool. We all know he hasn't really packed up and he is hoping to return as some sort of hero.
In terms of the for and against it may appear that many are pro-whip but you have to consider multiple posts and the fact that the audience has been bombarded with pro-whip propaganda in the media because as I said they see it as part of their existence to cosy-up to the jockeys. Had they have been ripped apart they would have just crawled back into a hole. I don't always agree with Bruce Millington but he has written two pieces worth reading over the last two days - I have seen endless pro-whip diatribe quoted on here but these appear to have gone unheralded. |
|
By:
There is no logic,BHA are living in an ethereal liberal fantasy word,in my opinion.
|
|
By:
Stake & Chips Joined: 10 Jul 01
Replies: 4590 14 Oct 11 08:52 Why is it ok to hit a horse 5 times, but not 6? Where is the logic in that? Because the line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE. You can go on and on with the why 5, not 6, why 6 not 7, why 7 not 8......but its where the line has been drawn. Its the mark you must not step over. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Give over Grendel,horses for courses,everyone of them needs a different touch,take that away from a horseman and you are fcuked.
|
|
By:
There does not have to be any line,there does not have to be any set number, we are not talking about children,we are talking about skilled ridres.
It is upto the stewards to interpret a ride,maybe we need better stewards but thats not the issue . Julian Carey could hit you a dozen times and it may mean nothing,a couple of punches from Tyson would |
|
By:
There does not have to be any line,there does not have to be any set number, we are not talking about children,we are talking about skilled ridres.
It is upto the stewards to interpret a ride,maybe we need better stewards but thats not the issue . Julian Carey could hit you a dozen times and it may mean nothing,a couple of punches from Tyson would |
|
By:
There does not have to be any line,there does not have to be any set number, we are not talking about children,we are talking about skilled ridres.
It is upto the stewards to interpret a ride,maybe we need better stewards but thats not the issue . Julian Carey could hit you a dozen times and it may mean nothing,a couple of punches from Tyson would |
|
By:
There does not have to be any line,there does not have to be any set number, we are not talking about children,we are talking about skilled ridres.
It is upto the stewards to interpret a ride,maybe we need better stewards but thats not the issue . Julian Carey could hit you a dozen times and it may mean nothing,a couple of punches from Tyson would |
|
By:
There does not have to be any line,there does not have to be any set number, we are not talking about children,we are talking about skilled ridres.
It is upto the stewards to interpret a ride,maybe we need better stewards but thats not the issue . Julian Carey could hit you a dozen times and it may mean nothing,a couple of punches from Tyson would |
|
By:
Well done Richard Hughes.A brave decision.I hope other jockeys follow suit and get through to people like Jamie Stier,who know little about the practical side of riding.
|
|
By:
Boing!
|
|
By:
If there is an absolute necessity for there to be a distinct boundary (I'm not convinced, as it should be the job of the stewards to decide if their has been any detrimental whip "abuse" imo).
If a jockey has transgressed this boundary, then there should be an inquiry held, and only if there is clear evidence that the horse has been abused (i.e. marked, or in distress), then that jockey should be liable for a potential ban. Just my view. |
|
By:
There does not have to be any line,there does not have to be any set number, we are not talking about children,we are talking about skilled ridres.
It is upto the stewards to interpret a ride,maybe we need better stewards but thats not the issue . Julian Carey could hit you a dozen times and it may mean nothing,a couple of punches from Tyson would mean much more,. A law stating 6 months for 5 hits but a warning for two would be pretty silly. Making silly rules to appease a percieved Esher Ranzenesque public is not the way for the sport to go. We should have profesional stewards not naughty school style rules about numbers imo. |